Monday, May 11, 2026

Gerrymandering

 On the gerrymandering front.   

 It sounds like TN DEFers are fighting to save a district represented by an old, white guy from being represented by a black woman.   All in the name of racial equity or some such nonsense. 

In VA, the DFL is so angry that the state supreme court struck down their gerrymandering effort because it didn't follow the state law (and bypassed the commission charged with redistricting),  that they have decided that their best course of action is to change state law to completely replace the state supreme court with puppets who'll bless their illegal scheme.   Because democracy is the most important thing.  

The Straits of Hormuz

 I haven't written a lot on the Iran conflict.   I agree that Iran should not have nukes and the the most recent/current regime is objectively evil.  So, I don't have much issue with the goals.  

What I find interesting is Iran claiming that it should have total control of the Straits of Hormuz.   As I look at the map there are 7 countries other than Iran that border the Persian Gulf, and 2 or 3 that actually border the Straits of Hormuz.   I can't help but wonder why Iran believes that it unilaterally controls a waterway that is bordered by other countries and which is the only sea access for multiple other countries.  How is it that this type of oppressive behavior is accepted and tolerated by the GSPL? (global, social and political left)  On what legal basis is Iran making this claim?   For people who quickly rush to impose international law on the US and Israel to fail to do so with Iran seems contradictory at best.  In general, the notion that the GSPL is indifferent to the Iranian regime's behavior and their goal of producing nukes seems to go against their alleged principles.  

Real Journalism

 https://www.instagram.com/p/DYC6RlKlWmB/?igsh=Znl3Y2N4M3dpZ2I5

 https://www.instagram.com/reels/DYGEr0GuGdd/

Actual "real journalism" by actual journalists pointing out actual  news.    

 

 

 

 

 https://www.instagram.com/p/DYDDixzj0ti/?igsh=MWtncDV0d2s1cGgxOQ%3D%3D

You literally cannot make this up

The photojournalist of this front page NYT piece Saher Alghorra just won a Pulitzer Prize

NYT had to issue a retraction because the entire story was fake

So you can win a pulitzer now after fabricating an entire hoax story 🤡

Unreal"

 

This is the "real journalism" Dan regularly touts as superior.  

More CA Nonsense

 https://x.com/realpeteyb123/status/2052921811998765526?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

The more I hear about the latest CA government give away, the more convinced I am that Newsome is simply buying votes. laundering campaign contributions, and enriching his cronies.  But the DFL seem convinced that the US needs him for POTUS.  

FWIW, there might actually be a critical need for free diapers in CA, although I kind of doubt it.   But why would anyone add a second layer of overhead to a straightforward program.   The stats buys the diapers, and gives them away.  It's not that hard.  Why bring in a group that's going to add cost to the program, especially one run by a Newsome crony?   

Let's Protest

 https://www.instagram.com/reels/DX6vNAXR3Hw/

Much like Maher, I'm not a big fan of SAS.   But he makes some really good points in this video clip.   

From a purely pragmatic point, it would be a huge statement for a large majority of black voters to either vote GOP or sit out as a protest against the DFL taking them for granted.   

Caution

 https://x.com/danburmawy/status/2053104285001343384?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Adolf Eichmann, a high-ranking Nazi and one of the architects of the Holocaust, fled to South America after World War II. In 1962, he was captured and brought to Israel for trial. During the proceedings, the prosecution brought in survivors from Nazi death camps to testify against him. One of them, Yehiel Dinur, entered the courtroom and came face to face with Eichmann, who was seated in a glass box. The moment Dinur saw him, he collapsed to the ground, shaking and sobbing uncontrollably. Years later, in an interview with 60 Minutes, journalist Mike Wallace asked Dinur if his reaction had been caused by traumatic memories from the concentration camps. "No," Dinur replied. "It was not the memories that made me collapse. It was the realization that Eichmann was not a demon. He was an ordinary man. Hannah Arendt, a journalist for The New Yorker, attended Eichmann’s trial and later wrote about it. She noted that Eichmann was not a psychopath, not a man burning with sadistic hatred. He was ordinary. That is what made him so terrifying. He was a man who followed orders, who did his job, who justified the horrors he participated in without ever questioning them. All humans have the capacity for evil. We all have within us the ability to justify unspeakable horrors if the conditions are right. The question is not whether we are capable of evil, but what prevents us from committing it? Most religions restrain human evil. They set moral boundaries, condemning acts of violence, injustice, and cruelty. Christianity commands its followers to love their enemies, forgive those who harm them, and refuse vengeance. Judaism, despite its history of persecution, never formed a doctrine commanding global conquest or the extermination of non-Jews. Islam, however, does the opposite. When an ISIS fighter beheads a captive, he is not acting outside the teachings of his faith. He is following the example of Muhammad, who personally oversaw the beheading of hundreds of Jewish men in Medina. When Hamas terrorists slaughter Israeli families, they are not betraying Islam, they are fulfilling the doctrine of jihad, which commands war against non-Muslims until Islam dominates the world. Unlike Christianity, which calls for self-sacrifice, Islam calls for sacrificing others. Unlike Judaism, which focuses on preserving its own people, Islam commands the subjugation or destruction of all who reject it. We all have the potential for evil. But the difference between a person who commits atrocities and one who does not is the belief system that shapes them. A Christian who commits murder is violating his faith. A Muslim who kills an apostate is fulfilling his. A Buddhist who wages war is going against the teachings of his religion. A jihadist who slaughters unbelievers is doing exactly what his religion commands. The Nazis did not commit genocide because they were born different from us. They did it because they were indoctrinated into an ideology that justified mass murder. The same is true for every Hamas terrorist, every suicide bomber, every ISIS militant. Their faith tells them that their victims are not innocent, not human, not worthy of mercy. And so, they kill without hesitation. The reality is, Islam is the only major religion that actively commands the atrocities we fear. It is the only faith where genocide, subjugation, and violence are not historical accidents, but divine commandments. It is a mistake to think Islam is just another religion, rather than the most dangerous ideology the world has ever known."

More From My New Favorite Writer

 https://x.com/bskimike22802/status/2053526652068548667?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Oh, I love this argument. I genuinely do. Let me introduce you to a concept they teach in about third grade: the difference between a NOUN and an ADJECTIVE. "Democratic" — ADJECTIVE. It describes a PROCESS. A car with a fast engine is not a "fast." A library that is quiet is not a "quiet." And a republic that uses voting to select representatives is not a "democracy." The process does not rename the institution. This is not complicated. "Democracy" — NOUN. A specific form of government where the PEOPLE vote DIRECTLY on the laws themselves. Majority rules. No filter. No constitutional ceiling on what that majority can do to the minority. That is what the word means — and that is EXACTLY what the Founders said they were NOT building. (Federalist No. 10. Go read it. I'll wait.) Now, since you want to hang your entire argument on "but we vote" — here is my challenge to you: NAME ONE THING — just ONE — that you, as an individual American citizen, vote for DIRECTLY at the federal level. Not at the state level, at the federal level. Just one. One more question, if we are a democracy, can 51% of the people decide to get rid of the Constitution, get rid of the House, or get rid of the Senate... All of it? Just wondering because that is how Democracies work. I will be here. Scientifically. Patiently. Waiting."

 

 

I'm not going to copy/paste the whole exchange, it's available through the link above. However, this is an excallent response to those who insist that the US is a democracy.  

Friday, May 8, 2026

BoT

 https://x.com/matrixmysteries/status/2052149154852577690?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Is this what justice looks like in Blue constituencies?  

 https://x.com/ArchRose90/status/2051590271331143947

 https://www.gbnews.com/politics/green-party-candidate-antoinette-fernandez-slavery-reparations-descendant-royal-traders

Fox, coop.  Enjoy.  

 https://climatechangedispatch.com/rcp85-dead-ipcc-climate-scenarios/

 https://principia-scientific.com/climate-sciences-biggest-shift-in-decades-ipccs-rcp8-5-is-officially-dead/

Let's see how long the lemmings cling to the narrative. 

 

 Image

 

 https://x.com/tomselliott/status/2051710034568982878?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "NYT's @NickKristof to fellow progressives: "A black kid in Mississippi is 2.5 times as likely to be proficient in math & reading by 4th grade as a black kid in Calif. Do we need to look a little bit less at what the Trump Admin is doing ... & look a little more in the mirror?""

 He's a "real journalist" right? 

 https://x.com/fightwithmemes/status/2051823760529875274?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

 Image

 

 Image

  https://x.com/politicalmath/status/2051835753282359753?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "BLM put this chart together? Do they... are they... um... aware what it shows?"

 

 Image

 https://x.com/jewsfightback/status/2051765660053917821?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

More Blue "justice". 

 https://x.com/wallstreetapes/status/2051980304227655987?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

There are still people who think that Newsome is the best DFL POTUS candidate. The state is a quagmire of corruption. 

 

 

 







 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correcting Idiocy

 https://x.com/bskimike22802/status/2052034214933995865?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "Dear Senator Hickenlooper, I want to make sure I understand what just happened here. A man worth an estimated THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS -- who paid a 13% effective federal tax rate in 2012, used conservation easements as a tax shelter until the IRS said "nice try" and made him write a $52,486 check to settle it -- who takes campaign money from lobbyists in securities, real estate, and finance -- just posted "Trump picks the rich. Every. Single. Time." I mean. Okay. Sure. Let's start with where your framing falls apart, which is immediately. The Senate passed that bill 89-10, yes. The White House DID support its core direction -- limiting institutional investors from buying up existing single-family homes. What Trump is objecting to NOW is ONE specific provision: a mandate forcing large build-to-rent developers to sell properties after seven years. One provision. In a massive bill. A policy disagreement on implementation -- the kind that happens in legislation every single day. You turned that into "TRUMP PICKS THE RICH EVERY SINGLE TIME." That is weapons-grade stupid. Or it is deliberate. Pick one. Neither reflects well. Now. About this "Tax the Rich" routine from a man sitting on a $30 million net worth. I keep seeing these Democrats chant "Tax the Rich" while they ARE the rich -- not only knowing the loopholes, but writing them into law and filing accordingly. I do not want to hear a single word about the wealthy until you lead by example: standard deduction only, zero itemized write-offs, and pay DOUBLE whatever the IRS says you owe. Until that glorious day, Senator, you are as useful on this subject as a cordless extension cord. And if the rich are truly so catastrophically evil they deserve their own tweet every other week -- I have a modest proposal. Put the iPhone down. Tim Cook is worth a couple billion. Walk away from your house; wealthy financiers built the lending market that made its construction possible. That tailored suit? Textile executives. The medication in your cabinet? Big Pharma -- the very corporations you campaign against between fundraisers -- ran the clinical trials standing between "that disease kills you" and "that disease is now treatable." The internet you used to post this very tweet? Built on the backs of obscenely wealthy tech founders and private capital. Go ahead. Boycott the rich. I'll wait right here. Now. Who actually broke the housing market? Not landlords. GOVERNMENT broke the housing market. A hundred years of it, actually. 82% of residential land in the San Francisco Bay Area is zoned single-family only. Duplexes? Illegal. Triplexes? Illegal. A starter home a working family could genuinely afford? Banned -- not metaphorically, LITERALLY BANNED -- by minimum lot size rules that ensure the land costs more than a modest house can absorb. Environmental review laws -- reasonable in principle, weaponized in practice -- became litigation tools for wealthy NIMBY homeowners determined that affordable housing should be someone else's neighborhood problem. Parking minimums add $10,000 to $50,000 per unit before a single wall goes up. Permitting timelines in some jurisdictions stretch into years. The median age of a first-time homebuyer is now 40. In 1950 it was 25. THAT is Quinn's Law Number One at full throttle -- liberalism always produces the EXACT OPPOSITE of its stated intent. Your party spent a century making affordable homes illegal to build, and is now at the podium demanding credit for caring about the people it priced out. The families locked out of homeownership right now? Young. Working class. Lower-income buyers who will never build the generational wealth that homeownership creates -- not because of evil landlords, but because of zoning laws, environmental litigation, and regulatory cost stacks that your ideological coalition actively championed for DECADES. And now you want to be the hero. Senator -- which of these is true? You did not read the actual bill and are just running on spite-autopilot. OR you read it and the distinction between "objecting to one provision" and "siding with corporate landlords" was simply outside the cognitive bandwidth currently available to you. OR -- the one that should concern your constituents most -- you understood perfectly and decided they did not need to know the difference. Three options. All embarrassing. Only one requires an apology. But what do I know -- I am only a science teacher who spent time actually reading housing policy and discovered that the government does not fix problems it manufactured by doing more of what manufactured them."

Capitalism Again

 https://x.com/brivael/status/2052311280564748501?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

If you're a good-faith leftist and you're reading this thread, read what's next carefully. You might become a liberal in five minutes. The sentence is beautiful because it perfectly sums up the fundamental economic error of the left: "a system that wants to concentrate all the wealth in the hands of a few." This sentence assumes that wealth is a fixed pie. A finite quantity. If someone takes more, others necessarily have less. If Bezos is rich, it's necessarily because he stole from the poor. That's false. It's the most false thing you can believe in economics. And that's where all the error comes from. Wealth isn't a pie to be shared. It is created. A baker who produces bread doesn't take anything from anyone. He adds bread to the world. Before him: no bread. After him: bread. The world is richer, he is richer, his customers are more satisfied. No one lost. Everyone gained. That's the difference between a market exchange (positive-sum game: both parties win, or they wouldn't exchange) and theft (zero-sum game: what one gains, the other loses). Capitalism is based on exchange. Communism, on forced redistribution, therefore on theft. Now the numbers. Because this isn't an opinion, it's historical arithmetic. In 1820, 94% of humanity lived in poverty, 84% in extreme poverty (less than a dollar a day). Today, global extreme poverty has fallen to about 9%. This is the most extraordinary data point in human history. In 200 years, we've gone from 9 out of 10 people in absolute misery to fewer than 1 out of 10. In just the last 35 years, 117,000 people escape extreme poverty every day. Every day. Since 1990. That's more than 1.5 billion people in total. That's the equivalent of 25 times the French population lifted out of absolute misery in one generation. What caused that? Not humanitarian aid. Not NGOs. Not the state. Economic growth. Therefore capitalism. Therefore market exchange that creates wealth where there was none. The two countries that contributed the most to this miracle are China and India. Both were communist or socialist. Both were among the poorest countries in the world. Both decided in the 1970s-80s to shift toward a market economy. Result: 800 million Chinese and several hundred million Indians lifted out of poverty in 40 years. Communism kept those countries in misery. Capitalism got them out. That's a fact. Not an opinion. So reality exactly reverses your sentence. Capitalism doesn't concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. It creates so much of it, everywhere, that even the poorest become less poor. Bezos is rich, AND the average Bangladeshi eats better today than an 18th-century king. Both are true at the same time. That's what you need to understand. Communism, on the other hand, doesn't create wealth. It redistributes what already exists, until there's none left at all. That's why it always ends up producing generalized poverty. Not by accident. Mechanically. When you break the system that creates wealth, all that's left is to share the misery. Yesterday's prosperous Venezuela is today a country where people eat dogs. Cuba after 65 years of socialism has a per capita GDP lower than that of neighboring Dominican Republic. North Korea at night is a black hole on satellite images next to a lit-up South Korea. That's not a detail. It's empirical proof repeated a hundred times. So if you really want to help the poor, you need to want more capitalism, not less. More free exchange. More entrepreneurship. More private property. More market. Not out of love for the rich, but out of compassion for the poor. It's the only system that sustainably lifts them out of misery. You can verify all the data above. World Bank, Our World in Data, Maddison Project. None of it is disputed. It's just that they've been hidden from you, because they destroy the narrative you were sold in school, at university, in the media. Now you know. The question is no longer "what do you believe." It's "what are you going to do with what you now know." Welcome."

Are Men Lost?

 https://www.thefp.com/p/how-democrats-lost-men?fbclid=IwY2xjawRrFbNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFjaTZzZndYM2JpZ2YwcnNvc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHv9Wgl0ufowdg4AltWQaS1vH3vEFjzQaA0gQhUqPW390gZRK_HM2B1M6BO6m_aem_8bNxhtwCLrkYE-l5TEPe0w&brid=YWdncwHTqOgIu_-53zhhyWHxdDnK

 

Long link, but interesting article.   

Vegitarian Orcs (Updated)

 https://x.com/larrytaunton/status/2052161289544155235?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 "Fantastic. Gorsuch is (unwittingly) making my argument re Islam for me. If we’re truly to be a creedal nation, and we should be, then we must deny citizenship to any who cannot live by these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” Outlawing Sharia isn’t enough. We must outlaw Islam and deny it the respectability and protection afforded it as a religion. It’s an ideology that, when practiced seriously, is fundamentally opposed not only to these sentiments in The Declaration of Independence, but to the entire Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself. To let waves of Muslims into this country is like the Hobbits letting Orcs into the Shire because they swore they were now vegetarians."

 

 https://x.com/saragonzalestx/status/2052899293988532674?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://x.com/saragonzalestx/status/2052555813751865680?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYwt

 

Another "Learing Center" and a "Muslims Only" event. What could possibly go wrong. 

 

The obvious answer is to require that Muslims agree to forswear allegiance to any aspect of Islam that conflicts with US law or founding "creeds", but we know that Muslims have permission to lie about this sort of thing which is kind of sowing the seeds of their own destruction. 

 https://x.com/sarahiscensored/status/2052912540489851341?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Maybe Anabaptists Aren't Always As Portrayed

 https://x.com/handre/status/2052295198990799040?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://exhibitions.lib.cam.ac.uk/reformation/artifacts/the-anabaptist-kingdom-of-munster/

 "The Anabaptist Kingdom of Münster stands as history's most vivid demonstration that collectivism breeds tyranny and starvation centuries before Marx penned a single word about class struggle. In 1534, radical Anabaptist preachers seized control of this German city and immediately declared their "New Jerusalem" built on complete communal ownership. Private property vanished overnight. The new regime confiscated all money and demanded citizens pool every resource for the collective good. Sound familiar? The self-proclaimed "Tailor-King" Jan van Leiden ruled this proto-socialist paradise with absolute authority, enforcing his vision of equality through systematic terror. Dissenters faced immediate execution. The state mandated polygamy as official policy while abolishing individual economic choice entirely. When you destroy price signals and property rights, you destroy the coordination mechanism that feeds cities. Münster's collectivist experiment delivered exactly what economic theory predicts: rapid collapse into famine and chaos. Within months, residents ate rats and boiled leather to survive. Reports of cannibalism emerged as the egalitarian dream transformed into a living nightmare. The most predictable element? Elite hypocrisy. While ordinary citizens starved in their enforced equality, van Leiden and his inner circle lived in luxury, enjoying the finest food and accommodations the collective could provide. Centralized power inevitably corrupts those who wield it. The economic logic remains bulletproof: without private property, individuals lose incentive to produce efficiently. Without market prices, planners cannot calculate resource allocation. Without voluntary exchange, coercion becomes the only tool for organizing complex society. Münster's rulers discovered these iron laws the hard way. The starving city collapsed from within as its communist economy proved incapable of sustaining basic human life. When Catholic armies finally retook Münster in 1535, they found a wasteland of economic destruction and human misery. The victors tortured the surviving Anabaptist leaders and displayed their bodies in iron cages hung from the city's main church. Those cages remained there for centuries as a warning about utopian schemes that promise equality but deliver only death. Modern advocates of wealth redistribution and collective ownership prefer to ignore Münster's lessons. They insist their version of centralized control will somehow escape the economic laws that doomed every previous attempt. But human nature and market forces operate independently of ideological wishes. The Anabaptist experiment reveals the fatal flaw in all collectivist thinking: the assumption that abolishing property rights creates abundance rather than scarcity. In reality, property rights exist because they solve the fundamental problem of resource allocation in a world of competing needs and limited goods. Münster's collapse took just sixteen months to complete. The city's descent from Protestant reform to communist tyranny to economic wasteland offers a perfect case study in how quickly good intentions can destroy functioning societies when they ignore basic economic principles. You can find those iron cages in Münster today, still hanging from St. Lambert's Church after nearly five centuries. They serve as permanent reminders that collectivism's promises always end the same way: in starvation, tyranny, and death."

So, A Representative From NY Gets Dogmatic About VA Law

 https://x.com/bskimike22802/status/2052801717238907162?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

@RepJeffries

Oh, look. A snollygoster with a Twitter account and delusions of adequacy. The Virginia Supreme Court did NOT "overturn the will of 3 million voters." The Court ruled -- 4 to 3 -- that YOUR legislature violated Article XII, Section 1 of Virginia's OWN constitution in the PROCESS it used to put that amendment on the ballot. The process was broken. Broken BY YOUR SIDE. Procedural violations have consequences. That is not disenfranchisement. That is called THE RULE OF LAW. I know. Revolutionary concept. Now let us discuss what that amendment was actually engineered to accomplish -- because I would explain it further, but I left my crayons at home. Your party wanted to redraw Virginia's congressional map from 6-5 Democrat... to 10-1 Democrat. In a state that votes approximately 50-50. The existing maps -- the ones confirmed to remain in place -- were drawn by a BIPARTISAN commission in 2021 with YOUR party at the table. Now those same bipartisan maps are "Jim Crow." If you stand close enough to that argument, you can hear the ocean. Jim Crow. Let us linger here for a moment. Was there not a single person on your staff with the spine to tap you on the shoulder and say, "Sir, perhaps WE should not be the ones invoking Jim Crow"? The DEMOCRAT Party. The party that wrote Jim Crow. Filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 75 CALENDAR DAYS. Gave us Senator Robert Byrd -- a KKK recruiter personally eulogized as the "conscience of the Senate" by your Democrat colleagues. Every piece of racial oppression stitched into American law has a Democrat's signature at the bottom. Every. Single. One. And YOU want to lecture people about Jim Crow attacks on Black representation while your party was engineering Black voters into window dressing for a 10-to-1 map they were supposed to be grateful for. You are the reason God created the middle finger. Quinn's Law Number 22 says liberals love democracy -- right up until it does not go their way. Quinn's Law Number 26 says liberals love the courts -- right up until the ruling stings. Watch both fire at once in a single post from a man who was clearly hiding behind the door when God handed out brains. The Virginia Supreme Court is the FINAL word on Virginia constitutional matters. That ruling stands. Those bipartisan 2021 maps stand. The only thing that does not stand is your party's attempt to confiscate a purple state's congressional delegation through a procedurally invalid ballot maneuver -- and then call anyone who noticed a racist. Next you are going to tell me that the party which seceded from the Union to protect slavery, invented the KKK, authored Jim Crow, spent a century blocking Black political power, and JUST tried to manufacture a 10-to-1 map in a state split evenly down the middle is, somehow, the true defender of Black representation in America. ...you already did. In the same post. Eats soup with a fork AND writes legislation with the same level of coordination. I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and produce a more coherent argument than whatever you just published, . That is not a low bar. You went under it anyway. But what do I know -- I am only a science teacher who actually read the Virginia Constitution AND the Court opinion, while you apparently could not pour water out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel AND your staff read them aloud."

Wednesday, May 6, 2026

Last One Today, I Promise

From Tyson Zahner 

 
"The most dangerous thing happening in our culture over the past decade is not any single political controversy.
It's the fact that millions of people are being coerced into staying quiet… not because they're wrong, but because the cost of asking an honest question has become too high.
For example, in just the past month alone, I've been told by people who disagree with me:
* ‘She should delete you as a friend’
* ‘Maybe you were raised by racists’
* ‘The ONLY acceptable response [to the video Trump shared] is total condemnation. Anything else means you’re a white nationalist.’
* ‘Tick tock. Say [that she was murdered by ICE]. Until you do, you're simply buying into morally pathetic ideology that [Renee Good] should have been killed for her actions.’
* ‘[Tyson is] okay with a human being killed by an ice agent for the offenses listed above.’
My crime? Adding factually accurate context to false narratives.
Not once did anyone identify a single thing I said that was false.
(and by the way, that last quote was said to me after I had explicitly written multiple times that I didn't know whether the shooting was justified. It didn't matter. The goal wasn't to understand my position. It was to assign me one)
At best, these are tactics used by people who simply cannot defend their position with facts and logic, so they resort to personal attacks, emotional manipulation, and character assassination instead.
At worst, they are the early stages of something far more dangerous…
These tactics have eerie parallels to the struggle sessions out of communist China.
In a Maoist struggle session, the point was never to arrive at truth. The point was to extract public confession and total submission.
The accused wasn't allowed to defend themselves, provide context, or ask questions. Any attempt to do so was treated as further evidence of guilt. The only acceptable response was full, unconditional agreement with the accusation.
The “Tick tock” comment, for example, was someone literally writing my confession for me and demanding that I sign it.
And by the way, if you want to see what a struggle session looks like, watch the opening scene of the Netflix show, “3 Body Problem”. A physics professor is publicly beaten to death by his own students for refusing to conform. His wife is forced to denounce him to survive. The crowd cheers.
Obviously I’m not saying this is exactly the same. The stakes are certainly different. But even the show's creator David Benioff acknowledged that while it wasn't intended as commentary on cancel culture, the similarities are "hard to ignore.”
And if your first instinct reading this is to say ‘oh please, you’re not being beaten to death in communist China’… you’re right.
I just said the stakes are different. But dismissing the comparison entirely is exactly how these tactics take root.
This is the logic and behavior of ideological conformity. The conclusion has already been reached. Your only role is to affirm it. Asking questions is evidence of guilt. Providing context is a ‘debate tactic.' Any deviation is treated as evidence that you need to be corrected, shamed, or excluded.
And the really insidious part is that it wraps itself in the language of justice and compassion, which makes it almost impossible to push back on without being framed as opposing justice and compassion themselves.
So beware of anyone who tells you there is only one acceptable response to any controversy, and that anything else makes you a bad person.
It’s a loyalty test.
And this should concern you regardless of your politics, because this is not how truth-seeking or justice works.
Remember, every society that has lost its freedom didn't lose it all at once. It started with something simple: people became afraid to speak out or ask questions. Not because the questions were wrong. But because asking them carried a social cost most people weren't willing to pay."

Myth v. Narrative

 https://x.com/bskimike22802/status/2049518716052713940?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

 "DEAR @RepJeffries

: THE VOTER SUPPRESSION FABLE -- AND THE RECEIPTS I HAVE FOR YOU Let me get this straight. You -- the man who voted against a clean Continuing Resolution twenty-nine times in a row, then called the THIRTIETH identical document "a partisan Republican spending bill that guts healthcare" -- you are the election integrity expert now. Got it. Sit down. Class is starting, and there is a lot of material to cover. — FIRST: THE ADMISSION THAT ENDED THE DEBATE IN 2021 — February 2021. TIME Magazine -- not exactly a publication that has Donald Trump's photo on its dartboard at the holiday party -- ran a piece titled "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election." Not my words. Their headline. And they were BRAGGING. Here is what they admitted, in their own publication: a "loosely organized coalition of operatives" got states to "change voting systems and laws," secured "hundreds of millions in public and private funding," "successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation," and "monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result." That is their description. Not a Republican's. Not some blogger's. THEIRS. Now you are on X telling me Republicans are "desperate to rig it." Quinn's Law Number Two applies here with the subtlety of a freight train: if you want to know what liberals are up to, pay attention to what they accuse conservatives of doing. You just described, almost word for word, what TIME Magazine bragged your side spent a year building and executing. The wheel is spinning, but the hamster apparently fell off somewhere before you hit "Post." — SECOND: THE VOTER ID MATH YOU WOULD RATHER NOT DO — The SAVE Act. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. It requires proof of United States citizenship to register to vote in a federal election. Not to walk up to the ballot on Election Day. To REGISTER. Once. With documents that include a REAL ID, a valid U.S. passport, a military ID with service records, OR a birth certificate alongside any photo ID. Section 2(f) even addresses name discrepancies for married women -- because apparently the people who wrote this bill actually read it, which I understand is a somewhat unusual practice in your caucus. You voted against it. Here is the polling data I suspect you have not bothered to look up. 76% of Black Americans support voter ID. Not 76% of conservatives. BLACK AMERICANS. 80% of Hispanic Americans. 80% of white Americans. The Carter-Baker Commission -- bipartisan, commissioned by JIMMY CARTER himself in 2005 -- listed voter ID as its NUMBER ONE recommendation for election integrity. Let me ask you the three questions I ask every politician who votes against the SAVE Act. Pick whichever one applies to you: Did you not read the bill and are simply following Democratic leadership talking points in spite of your own constituents? Are you not equipped to understand what the bill actually requires? Or are you perfectly comfortable deceiving the people who sent you to Congress? Because, Congressman, it is one of those three. There is no fourth door. And while you are deciding, I want to address something that your "voter suppression" rhetoric implies. When you claim voter ID is suppression because minorities cannot obtain identification, you are implying -- with a straight face -- that Black Americans are uniquely incapable of procuring the same documentation required to board an airplane, purchase alcohol, open a bank account, drive a car, collect government benefits, or FILL OUT AN I-9 FORM FOR EMPLOYMENT. Obtaining a voter registration under the SAVE Act is, documentationally speaking, EASIER than getting a job in America. Are you telling me that Black Americans cannot get jobs either? Because that is a special kind of stupid I did not expect from a sitting member of Congress. That is not protecting voters. That is the softest, most condescending bigotry of low expectations I have encountered outside of a parody account. Oh -- and Senator Jon Ossoff? Required photo ID for his own congressional town halls while voting against federal voter ID laws. The DNC checks credentials at their own convention. Your party requires photo identification to enter its own events while calling it suppression at the polls. I am going to let that just sit there while you catch up. — THIRD: THE CLEAN CR CHAPTER, SINCE WE ARE CATALOGUING IRONY — In 2022, you stood at a microphone and said "Republicans are holding the government and the American people hostage to their extreme agenda." Filed. On record. I have the timestamp. Democrats voted for a clean Continuing Resolution twenty-nine consecutive times between 2017 and 2025. Then on the thirtieth vote, the EXACT SAME TYPE OF DOCUMENT became -- in your words -- "a partisan Republican spending bill that continues to gut the healthcare of the American people." Nothing changed about the bill. The political convenience changed. The reason you gave for the shutdown: ACA COVID subsidies were expiring. Premiums would spike. People would suffer. Republicans were responsible. Except. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 -- zero Republican votes. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 -- zero Republican votes. Democrats wrote those subsidies as TEMPORARY. Democrats set the expiration date. Democrats built in the sunset clause. When that date arrived exactly as designed, you shut down the government and pointed at Republicans. That is the Christmas bonus argument and I refuse to use any softer words for it. If your boss gives you a $1,000 bonus in December and does not repeat it the following December, he did not cut your pay. He stopped giving you a bonus. Calling that a pay cut is either economic illiteracy or deliberate deception, and I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you know the difference between the two -- even if I am being generous in doing so. But here is what kills me. By insisting ACA premiums become unaffordable without COVID emergency money propping them up, you just admitted -- out loud, in public, on the congressional record -- that THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS NOT AFFORDABLE. Your party named it the Affordable Care Act. Then your party shut down the government to confess it cannot survive without pandemic relief. Quinn's Law Number One never takes a day off: liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent. Every. Single. Time. What's next -- you'll tell me the ACA kept healthcare costs down? ...Wait. I was just told premiums tripled under that bill. I see. — FOURTH: WHAT

ACTUALLY DID WITH $1.28 MILLION — You received $1,285,448 from the health sector in 2024. And $420,697 specifically from insurance companies. The same industry Luigi Mangione's fans wanted burned to the ground while cheering "deny, defend, depose" and putting his face on a Halloween costume. I thought Democrats were on that side of the insurance debate. I genuinely cannot keep up with the wheel of approved outrage -- the elevator in this caucus seems stuck between floors. So let me get this right: your party lionized a man accused of murdering a health insurance CEO as a folk hero, while you quietly accepted $420,697 in insurance company donations and voted against the very legislation that would ensure only legal citizens access the benefits those companies cover. That is a remarkable two-step. — FIFTH: FULTON COUNTY. SINCE YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT RIGGING. — January 28, 2026. The FBI executed two search warrants in Fulton County, Georgia. Two separate federal judges. Two independent findings of probable cause. Over 600 boxes of 2020 election records seized. FBI Special Agent Hugh Raymond Evans filed the affidavit. Here are the five specific documented findings -- not allegations, DOCUMENTED FINDINGS: scanned ballot images missing from 528,000 ballots; some ballots scanned MULTIPLE TIMES during the official recount; hand audit tallies inconsistent with actual batch contents; pristine, UNFOLDED absentee ballots -- which is physically impossible if they arrived inside mail envelopes; and the official recount reporting 511,000 ballots that jumped to 527,000 THE NEXT DAY. Sixteen thousand ballots. Overnight. During a recount. No explanation provided or requested. Georgia's 2020 margin: 11,779 votes. You do the math, or I can do it for you -- I am a teacher, this is literally what I am trained for. Fulton County's Commission Chairman filed emergency motions to have the ballots returned before the investigation concluded. That is not the behavior of someone confident in the integrity of the count. An innocent person does not run from an audit. If the election was clean, transparent, and free -- your words, not mine -- then every person involved would be begging for those ballots to be examined and confirmed. Every. Single. One. The ones fighting hardest against ballot examination are not making the argument you think they are making. — SIXTH: THE 45 COMMUNIST GOALS. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. JANUARY 10, 1963. — On that date, Congressman A.S. Herlong Jr. read into the permanent record a list of 45 Communist Goals for America, drawn from Cleon Skousen's research. I am not asking you to believe in a conspiracy. I am asking you to evaluate outcomes. Goal Number 15: capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. Goal Number 22: continue discrediting American culture. Goal Number 29: discredit the American Constitution as old-fashioned. Goal Number 38: transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. These were identified as external threats in 1963. The party consistently moving toward achieving them has a name. You know what it is. Your constituents are starting to figure it out too. — SEVENTH: WHAT HAVE YOU ACTUALLY DONE FOR YOUR DISTRICT? — I ask this of every Democratic politician who tweets about Republicans "suppressing" something while their constituents experience worse services, more crime, and more dependency on a party that has run their cities for fifty years without producing prosperity. You have been in Congress since 2013. In early 2026, thirty-two people were murdered across all five New York City boroughs. Your posts about those murders: zero. Six Americans were killed in Operation Epic Fury. Your post about that appeared before families were even notified, deploying the phrase "reckless decision" with remarkable efficiency for political leverage. Murder victims in your own district. Silence. American military KIA. Instant political theater. Couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel. — THE SUMMARY, FOR ANYONE WHOSE BRAIN IS STILL IN BETA — You voted against letting citizens prove they are citizens before registering to vote. You called a clean CR "partisan" on the thirtieth vote after supporting twenty-nine identical versions. You blamed Republicans for subsidies YOUR party wrote as temporary with zero Republican votes. You collected $1.28 million from the health sector while claiming to fight the healthcare industry. You ignored thirty-two murders in your own district and politicized American military deaths. You are now on X lecturing the country about who cannot win a free and fair election. Quinn's Law Number Six: facts are the enemy of liberalism. Here they are, Congressman. All of them. Documented. On the record. With timestamps and vote tallies available to anyone with internet access and five free minutes -- which is apparently more initiative than it took to type that post. -- you are going to want to read this one carefully. IF THIS ARTICLE MADE YOU THINK: LIKE this article so the algorithm shows it to people who need to read it. SHARE this -- every share really helps get the word out. Use it. COMMENT below with your take. Which part of ' voting record surprised you most -- the SAVE Act vote, the Clean CR reversal, or the $1.28 million in health sector money? Tell me. And if you want MORE of this -- the data, the history, the science, the stories -- JOIN Bski's Classroom community on X or follow me on YouTube. Even better, subscribe to my account; it is about the cost of a cup of coffee per month. That is it. Your support keeps this classroom open, and I promise I will never run out of material as long as the left keeps trying to out-dumb itself. But what do I know -- I am only a science teacher and Army combat medic who apparently spent more time reading ' own voting record than has."

 https://x.com/i/status/2049518716052713940